Intel declares Clover Trail Atom processor a “no Linux” zone

Even as Jelly Bean is ported to Intel's Atom Medfield processor.

During presentations at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco on September 13, Intel officials confirmed that the upcoming “Clover Trail” version of the company’s low-power Atom processor would not support Linux.

The Clover Field processor is targeted at mobile devices, such as low-cost notebooks and tablets. The Inquirer reports that an Intel representative at IDF declared that Clover Trail “cannot run Linux” and is exclusively “a Windows 8 chip.”

On September 11, Intel Architecture Group Executive Vice President David Perlmutter told IDF attendees in his keynote that the Clover Trail system-on-a-chip architecture was designed specifically for Windows 8 tablets and “convertibles.” In effect, Clover Trail is Intel’s effort to provide a full Windows 8 experience (including enterprise features missing from Windows RT) on devices competitive with ARM-based Windows 8 tablets.

To achieve that, Intel worked closely with Microsoft to instrument the chip to allow Windows 8 to control Clover Trail's advanced power management features, which support what Perlmutter called "always-on" functionality. It's that special sauce in Clover Trail that won't be supported for other operating systems, including Linux, likely in part because of Intel’s desire to keep those features close to the vest—and because of contractual obligations to Microsoft.

Ironically, some of the other news about Atom at IDF was all about Linux and its derivatives. Intel announced at IDF that the company’s developers had completed a port of Android 4.1 (known as “Jelly Bean”) to the Atom Medfield processor. PC Advisor’s Agam Shah reported that Intel Vice President and General Manager Mike Bell told IDF attendees in his keynote that he and a number of other Intel employees were already using Medfield-based smartphones running Jelly Bean. Cell phones based on the Medfield chip will become available next year, pending carrier acceptance.

151 Reader Comments

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

While I really like Windows 8 and where Microsoft is going with it, locking a CPU to only work with one operating system is just a bad idea. Secure boot will make it hard enough to get Linux on some of these Windows 8 machines.

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

Not sure it's something that needs to be "cracked" so much as something that they don't want to officially support. It looks like this chip is built to be optimized for Win8 using proprietary non-standard tech that they don't want open sourced. Apple does the same with their A5, A6, etc.

I'm sure someone can figure out how to port Linux to this but it might be hard to build the kernel for a processor without documentation. I may be missing something but I haven't seen much in the way of general purpose *nix builds for the Apple chips either. It's more trouble than it's worth I'd imagine. There are already plenty of chips that support Linux so why bother with one built specifically for Windows?

While on the one hand this is great for Win8, on the other this is a trend I would not like to see become common.

Kind of curious what the tech is that they are trying to protect..

The part with the contract with Microsoft that says Microsoft will pay Intel x dollars for this "feature" (or x dollars per thousand chips) to lock out potential Microsoft competitors from using the chip. I'll bet Balmer loves this idea.

Seems only yesterday Microsoft and executive Steve Balmer were convicted of monopoly behavior...the more things change...

So it won't be linux compatible right out of the box. Give it time, if this tablet is even worth a damn, it will be linux compatible within 6 months.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that someone will try to get Linux running on it. Basically, intel's saying that they're not going to supporting it, so no official chipset/SOC drivers from them. I don't think there's anything (besides Secure Boot) that would stop some smart devs from getting Linux on to it.

Will this actually stop anyone from using it with Linux? From what I can tell, the only thing they'll miss out on are these advanced power management features. It won't run as well and imperfectly without this support, but it could still run, couldn't it?

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

That's not the same thing at all. The iPhone is a complete propitiatory system. Than again it looks like we are about to have the Microsoft only propitiatory system come about. As long as these items are marketed as MS Windows 8 only systems then there should not be a problem. They are developing their own little walled garden I believe in order to just complete with Apple. I'll just sit back and watch the fun. I've never been one to agree to be locked up in someone's little private world.

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

I don't understand why this is a problem? How is this any different that Apple having their A4/A5 chips that just work for their operating systems?

It is just a niche product in a big market.

You don't see the os-locked Apple chips as a problem? That's worrying.

Right, because lordy knows nobody should have the right to optimize a chip for their particular product. Orthodoxy of the "open" world says that nobody has a right to do anything that does not support their creed, and their particular definition of purity.

What this tells me is that Windows 8 is such a kludge it can't be optimized for good hardware. It has to have hardware to prop it up.

I don't understand why this is a problem? How is this any different that Apple having their A4/A5 chips that just work for their operating systems?

It is just a niche product in a big market.

You don't see the os-locked Apple chips as a problem? That's worrying.

It is not any more of a problem than any other industry specific chip or part. For every A5 / Clover Trail proprietary part there is an Audrino or other open source part. The market likes and supports both.

I am willing to compare a device as a whole against another device. OS and hardware and ecosystem VS OS and hardware and ecosystem is good for me.

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

iPhones use ARM processors that are capable of running Windows 7/8 mobile and Android just as well actually.

I don't understand why this is a problem? How is this any different that Apple having their A4/A5 chips that just work for their operating systems?

It is just a niche product in a big market.

It isn't a problem in itself. But it harkens back to the bad old Wintel days, where stuff like this (and other HW manufacturers not developing Linux drivers) led to Linux not standing a chance on the desktop.

I don't understand why this is a problem? How is this any different that Apple having their A4/A5 chips that just work for their operating systems?

It is just a niche product in a big market.

You don't see the os-locked Apple chips as a problem? That's worrying.

Right, because lordy knows nobody should have the right to optimize a chip for their particular product. Orthodoxy of the "open" world says that nobody has a right to do anything that does not support their creed, and their particular definition of purity.

What this tells me is that Windows 8 is such a kludge it can't be optimized for good hardware. It has to have hardware to prop it up.

Or does it tell you that Windows 8 will be the best thing they have ever done as they optimized it from top to bottom? Software and hardware are being looked over with a fine tooth comb and made the best it can be.

There is some attention to detail here form Microsoft. Computers as a whole are being cheap commodity devices. Tinkerers are not locked out, but the masses don't have to be tinkerers anymore. We the technologists can still have virtual machines and hand compiled systems, while people who just want to work and have a reliable speedy system.

If this was a generally available chip then ok this would be dangerous stance for Intel to take.

But as its basically MS doing the same as Apple, Samsung, Motorola etc, in getting a specific chip for 'their' tablets, I can't really see the issue.

And as many have said, if someone wrote the software once for one os, someone else can write it again for another.

Right. People buy PCs and may choose to run various operating systems on them. Tablets and phones are a different thing altogether - none of them seem to be designed to run anything other than the operating system they ship with.

It's not like you're going to go to Newegg and buy this processor for a build-your-own device. So as you say, no different than any other manufacturer getting a specific chip for a specific piece of proprietary hardware.

People buy PCs and may choose to run various operating systems on them. Tablets and phones are a different thing altogether - none of them seem to be designed to run anything other than the operating system they ship with.

This is annoying, especially as tablets and phones become the dominant form of computing. Well, annoying for anyone opposed to lock-in and walled gardens. It's great if you benefit from locking users in, however.

It's really just a matter of time. If the processor actually offers any real advantage over its competitors' offerings the hacking scene will reverse engineer the API. It's nothing new. If anything, one could look at this entire thing even more cynically: it's a PR stunt to SUMMON the legions of Linux hackers whose immediate response to "nuh-uh" is "watch me." There's an entire subgroup that gets off on the sequence of "company announces product with a processor of some kind" -> "I wonder if I can run Linux on that" -> "I told you it would run Linux!"

Someone saying "no you can't" in this scene is no different than idiots using the phrase "unhackable." The only thing you're doing is throwing down a gauntlet to a subculture consisting primarily of people whose primary motivation is challenge and learning. Telling them they can't do something is the most sure-fire way of getting them to SUCCESSFULLY do exactly what you said they couldn't.

So unless they completely rework the APIs for that thing with each iteration, I give it about a year before Linux is running on it. The odds of them significantly reworking anything as complex as the APIs on a rapid schedule are probably really low, since it would break compatibility with previous software, as well as make it exceedingly difficult to continue writing software for it (seriously, who would write code for something whose language has to be relearned every year or two?)

I don't understand why this is a problem? How is this any different that Apple having their A4/A5 chips that just work for their operating systems?

It is just a niche product in a big market.

You don't see the os-locked Apple chips as a problem? That's worrying.

Right, because lordy knows nobody should have the right to optimize a chip for their particular product. Orthodoxy of the "open" world says that nobody has a right to do anything that does not support their creed, and their particular definition of purity.

What this tells me is that Windows 8 is such a kludge it can't be optimized for good hardware. It has to have hardware to prop it up.

Please don't generalize everyone who supports open source. Not everyone is on the RMS bandwagon.

I'm just gonna skip the rant and say that I am 100% opposed to CPUs that magically only work with one specific piece of software and that this is a phenomenally dangerous concept. Kill it with fire and banish it to the ninth circle of lockin hell.

So I assume you are against all of the iphones with their custom processors no one else can use as well?

You know those don't count!

Not relevant. Those are nearly off the shelf Samsung Exynos CPUs. Apple locks their devices through the boot loaders the same as some Android devices.

The point should be about complete systems built locked to one OS. Also, driver support is a huge issue with Intel. Their support of many GMA GPUs on Linux is garbage, even Windows support is poor (GMA 500,600,3xxx, etc.). Abandonware (hardware) should require some kind of removal of NDA and release of driver source.

I'm going to take a slightly different track as to why I don't like this. Granted, this doesn't apply to most people but it does give me pause.

I repurpose a lot of outdated desktops/laptops from work into simple internet gateways/school work geared machines. These I'll pass these off to coworkers when I can but a lot of times I will roll them out to schools, churches, or people that really just need a basic computer and can't really afford one. Most of the time I'll put Ubuntu on them along with firefox and open office (libre now....) so that the basics are covered. I could throw a windows image on, and sometimes do, but I really need to pass these out with an OS that basic users can't mess up too bad because I can't do charity support work forever. Locking down an OS just seems bad, and in my case would hamstring what otherwise is an honest goodwill gesture for others with limited means.

Granted I've not played with Windows 8 and it might be robust enough to not flake out in inexperienced hands, but until proven otherwise I'm not digging this move.

I read "Intel wants to keep those features close to the vest" as "Intel doesn't want ARM or AMD to reverse engineer the hardware via the software controls to deliver a competing product."

In all honestly there are plenty of bright software engineers working on Linux who can probably puzzle out a solution to both secure boot AND Intel's power management problem to allow it to run, and run well, on whatever they want it to. If nothing else, smart people love a challenge, and this is a good one.

It's also god damn hilarious how many people rail at MS about "omg walled garden" when Apple gets a free pass, simply because they aren't as ubiquitous. Seriously, the standard Win8 for x86 is going to be just like every other windows OS. WinRT is going to be somewhat more walled off, and even then it's going to be easier to sideload software on than any Apple device out there.

I read "Intel wants to keep those features close to the vest" as "Intel doesn't want ARM or AMD to reverse engineer the hardware via the software controls to deliver a competing product."

In all honestly there are plenty of bright software engineers working on Linux who can probably puzzle out a solution to both secure boot AND Intel's power management problem to allow it to run, and run well, on whatever they want it to. If nothing else, smart people love a challenge, and this is a good one.

It's also god damn hilarious how many people rail at MS about "omg walled garden" when Apple gets a free pass, simply because they aren't as ubiquitous. Seriously, the standard Win8 for x86 is going to be just like every other windows OS. WinRT is going to be somewhat more walled off, and even then it's going to be easier to sideload software on than any Apple device out there.

Selective hearing, mate, it's why even those of us that used to like MacOS won't touch an iProduct with a hazmat suit on. Apple doesn't get a free pass since they rolled out the first iProduct.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.